I see the war starting and its simple, it should not be whether or nor that we can have/own guns, but rather how they are to be kept. Every gun based tragety of some kid (usually a young person of 10-25 though not inclusive) getting a hold of an improperly secured gun, that has its firing pin/bolt in it with ammunition readily available. As a permit holder, I am required to have the gun in a locked cabnet, unavailable to the common person, with the ammunition kept in another location, locked up, and any handgun must either be in a gun safe with a trigger lock or in the locked cabnet with the firing pin and ammunition stored in another locked location. I also must submit to any reasonable request from either the policing authorities or the master at arms office to an inspection of my hardware and its safe storage. This has gone a long way to removing the problem of shootings in Canada where gun violence is not really a problem, we prefer knives. If the USA enforced this kind of control then the whole debate would become moot.

As for carrying a gun: If properly licensed and can provide a very good and valid reason for carrying then yes, by all means. Conceiled? There is never a good reason for conceiled weaponry. I know I will be flamed for this but there are more death by cop situatons because the suspect is carrying, has identified as he is carrying and adivses and reaches for his wallet and gets shot for it. This said there are some very valid reasons for conceiled weaponry, and they will need to be properly addressed with in the system.

I am also a fan of stiffer punishments for gun related offences. Killing a person in Canada mean free room and board for 25 to life, I say work the bastard. If they dont work they get the bare minimums to survive, and they dont get all the nice privileges either. I understand the states that make use of chain gangs have a very low repeat offender count, maybe we should consider this. I know it can be seen as barbaric, but the whole point of incarseration is to educate and rehabilitate. If being nice does not work then we must be firm and fair, you will live but wont enjoy it.

I do agree that safe storage laws probably would have protected that one school. but they would have had no effect on the batman shooter. Actually not even the NRA response of 'arm everyone' would have helped with the Batman shooter. (as I understand it)

The man came prepared to be shot at. He was wearing full body armour including helmet and mask. He staged a carefully thought out ambush, timed to generate confusion and hesitation, counter attack disrupted by use of irritant gas and by his self placement so that while he and an endless supply of targets. most people who might consider shooting back had to worry about shooting through/over a crowd. In his case, neither safe storage laws (he would have ignored them) NOR everyone being armed (many were, it was a concealed carry state) I have found no record in any of the news about someone shooting back at him.

Yes people should be able to own guns if they want to its thier choice to do so here its also thier RIGHT to do so.
I just love how people in other countrys think we sould be like them under the governments thumb and unable to defend themselfs against criminals

There is no right in any legal document to own a gun, even the American constitution does not give the right to own a gun. Of course this is always mis-read and simply quoted (2nd ammt) "the right to bare arms" when they stop reading the most important part, the actual text reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means you the individual have no rights unless you are part of the militia required to protect a free state. A militia is a sanctioned army(police forces are militia). Here is a link to the second amendment: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
Each specific state has added to this base right, but it is not uniform federaly

There are other laws which allow a person to protect themselves from the goverment in times of war.

Very ambivalent on this one. Setting aside police officers, soldiers etc. I think I'd rather wonder and ask the question what makes it work for some countries to not have guns at all?

I often wonder about this difference in some countries. What does the "gun-countries" have that "non gun-countries" have and vice versa? Is it a matter of crime statistics? That just doesn't make much sense to me. There must be reasons to why it works in some countries for civilians to not own firearms.

I have no idea if it's been studied. but I think for my country. Which I challenge anyone to say isn't free. (how precarious that freedom is might be worth debate but...) I think it's a matter of culture. People feel safe. There's a lot of faith given to our various government agencies. Hell we use our federal cops as a national symbol and they have the potential given their sweeping areas of authority to be something more akin to the KGB. but they are instead our charming little public relations heroes.

It's not like people are unarmed. Most rural folk hunt or have to control predators and pests on their farms. Shotguns and Trusty Enfields are common outside the cities.

we just... don't have a lot of crime. our per capita violent crime rate is a 1/7 the US and our total capita is a 1/10

We hear about bad things happening in the US 70 times more than they show up in our news. and the always show up. violance and spectacular crime, Crisis, angst, and doom. That's what sells newspapers.

(I have a theory on the differences between Canadian and American culture regarding crime and violence and our relation with the government. but I think discussing these cultural matters here would do disservice to the thread. There's separate threads on Canada and the US and someone could always start a new one)

Would be interesting to find out if this has actually been studied on a greater scale, it's an interesting subject. I believe you are right, that culture has a great deal to say regarding this. Culture shapes us and gives us different mindsets, sometimes it just amazes me how people are so alike and yet so far from each other in mind.

You have a very good point about the media, newspapers and the likes and it makes sense. My knowledge on Canada is extremely limited while I'm thinking the majority of people are bombarded with what happens in the U.S. As far as I know our crime rate is low where I live as well and people dying by gunshots are rare (you'd have to be a part of the really shady community to have access to firearms), but who knows, sometimes we only know as much as the media tells us.

As for your federal cops that's... I don't know. Grooves under the otherwise calm surface to say the least? I think that's all I should say or as you point out the discussion might be spun away completely from the thread subject. Thank you for taking time to respond to me.

Yes people should be able to own guns if they want to its thier choice to do so here its also thier RIGHT to do so.
I just love how people in other countrys think we sould be like them under the governments thumb and unable to defend themselfs against criminals

There is no right in any legal document to own a gun, even the American constitution does not give the right to own a gun. Of course this is always mis-read and simply quoted (2nd ammt) "the right to bare arms" when they stop reading the most important part, the actual text reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means you the individual have no rights unless you are part of the militia required to protect a free state. A militia is a sanctioned army(police forces are militia). Here is a link to the second amendment: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
Each specific state has added to this base right, but it is not uniform federaly

There are other laws which allow a person to protect themselves from the goverment in times of war.

The above is AN interpretation. it's not the only one nor is it the one the follows the rules of English. The most important part is the verb, in this case 'Shall' (as in Shall not be infringed) the part about a well regulated Militia is the preamble. I won't argue that it's unimportant. It was put there for a reason. but speaking strictly as a grammarian the preamble could be a rant bout the price of Ice Cream in the Sudan for all its relevance to the part with the verb.

I will agree that there is more room the argue the legalese of the 2nd amendment than it's hard core proponents would like to admit. And I've already brought up the fact that unless it's the right to own an AA gun and some RPGs Americans are as much 'under the thumb' as any of us whom they mock as victims of tyranny due to our lack of access to small arms.

here is a tidbit of information for you. if the government takes away our right to bear arms (be it swords, guns, bombs, rocket launchers ect.) and they go collecting all guns ever sold to the public (and even so, what about antique guns that you can still fire) however, we have gangs and smugglers and all types of bad guys and villans that would successfully hide guns, be it in woods, secret compartments or whatever, say they finish rounding up the guns, what do you think the robbers that successfully have thier guns do?

here is a tidbit of information for you. if the government takes away our right to bear arms (be it swords, guns, bombs, rocket launchers ect.) and they go collecting all guns ever sold to the public (and even so, what about antique guns that you can still fire) however, we have gangs and smugglers and all types of bad guys and villans that would successfully hide guns, be it in woods, secret compartments or whatever, say they finish rounding up the guns, what do you think the robbers that successfully have thier guns do?

'

And that's why every day Canadians are being murdered in the streets. sorry, there is logic to your tidbit it's a beautiful theory. but the ugly fact that slays it is that ... well .. in a lot of places it just hasn't happened.

There is no right in any legal document to own a gun, even the American constitution does not give the right to own a gun. Of course this is always mis-read and simply quoted (2nd ammt) "the right to bare arms" when they stop reading the most important part, the actual text reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means you the individual have no rights unless you are part of the militia required to protect a free state. A militia is a sanctioned army(police forces are militia). Here is a link to the second amendment: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
Each specific state has added to this base right, but it is not uniform federaly

There are other laws which allow a person to protect themselves from the goverment in times of war.

The US Constitution does not give us any rights actually...it just guarantees that the Federal government cannot infringe upon our inalienable rights as human beings.

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason

Co-author of the Second Amendment

during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"

Richard Henry Lee

writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."

Zachariah Johnson

Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"

Philadelphia Federal Gazette

June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2

Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams

quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

If they're trained properly, maintained properly, and stored properly ('well regulated militia' portion of the 2nd in the US, the part that comes first), I don't see too much of an issue in general with owning guns. Owning specific types of guns, though, that's a different question. There's no need for certain types of weapons or magazines for said weapons in most cases, and in the cases where you might need something more, you're probably already hopelessly, hilariously outclassed (even an AR is nothing compared to an F-22, and that's not the worst that could be sent against a mass insurrection).

I enjoy target shooting, and so do most of my family members. Some hunt, some hit targets, some enjoy the engineering that goes into the making or customizing a weapon. All of us see why limits on guns makes sense to keep people safe. And looking to other countries with even stronger gun regulations and/or training, I'm envious of their far lesser rates of gun homicides and mass shootings.

I still think that if you really expect to have to engage in violent overthrow of, or simple resistance to, a government with a modern armed military. Mere small arms just aren't going to cut it. I think this was proven in Libya. The rebels were losing until NATO started hitting every armoured column it could spot.